Extaza of 34th Street v. City Stores Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Extaza of 34th Street v. City Stores Co.

97 A.D.2d 391, 468 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19968

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.D.2d 391 (Extaza of 34th Street v. City Stores Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Extaza of 34th Street v. City Stores Co., 97 A.D.2d 391, 468 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred M. Ascione, J.), entered April 4, 1983, denying the defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, affirmed, with costs and disbursements. We find the lease clause described in the dissent to be void under section 5-321 of the General Obligations Law. A substantially similar clause was struck down in Graphic Arts Supply v Raynor (91 AD2d 827) for the same lack of mutuality that we find here. The language there (p 828) is likewise applicable here: “Nothing in the agreement before us suggests any bilateral participation. If the instant agreement were held valid, landlords could circumvent the intent of the legislation merely by inserting in the lease a requirement that the tenant obtain insurance”. The opinion in Graphic Arts expressly distinguished the three cases relied upon by our dissenting brother, a distinction to which we subscribe. Concur — Asch, J. P., Bloom, Lynch and Alexander, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred M. Ascione, J.), entered April 4, 1983, denying the defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, affirmed, with costs and disbursements. We find the lease clause described in the dissent to be void under section 5-321 of the General Obligations Law. A substantially similar clause was struck down in Graphic Arts Supply v Raynor (91 AD2d 827) for the same lack of mutuality that we find here. The language there (p 828) is likewise applicable here: “Nothing in the agreement before us suggests any bilateral participation. If the instant agreement were held valid, landlords could circumvent the intent of the legislation merely by inserting in the lease a requirement that the tenant obtain insurance”. The opinion in Graphic Arts expressly distinguished the three cases relied upon by our dissenting brother, a distinction to which we subscribe. Concur — Asch, J. P., Bloom, Lynch and Alexander, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 391, 468 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/extaza-of-34th-street-v-city-stores-co-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack